Friday, December 31, 2010

Bleed The State by FreeRad

The State – A parasitic organization which claims a monopoly on the use of force. Through the use of force and indoctrination the State can, and does, live off of your life blood: your labor, or the product thereof. Without you the State cannot survive. Without your consent the state cannot hide behind the false premise of legitimacy. Without your labor the State will starve. Without the State you will thrive. Without the state all non-aggressive actions are, once again, legitimate. Without the State your labor, and its product, will remain yours. This is why the State is considered parasitic. The State cannot live without its host, but its host can live without the State and, in fact, the host will thrive without it.

Agorism – A Left Libertarian theory based on the premise that we can build a new society inside the decaying remains of an old one through the use of counter economics and subversion of the State. If the State cannot extract the product of your labor then it cannot survive. The State has no money, no land, no authority, and no legitimacy without the consent of the people. Those who attempt to say no are usually put in a cage for being "unAmerican". The most disturbing part about this sentiment is that one of the main reasons for America coming into existence had to do with excessive taxation with a lack of representation. We, as libertarians, lack any semblance of representation in congress, yet we are still bled by this parasite. We, as libertarians, do not consent to this system of governing through institutionalized aggression. We, as libertarians, need to take it upon ourselves to try and end this coercive, parasitic system of violence and corruption because if we do not then who will?

I, personally, believe that one aspect of potential action that could be and should be used by agorists has been left out, ignored, or simply not thought of and\or put to words by the many talented advocates of this movement. I don't know if it is due to an ideological stigma or if they just find it distasteful, but if we can bleed the parasite rather than allowing it to simply bleed us we may have a legitimate shot at taking down the state while many of us are still young enough to enjoy it.

In my opinion, one of the best ways to bleed the State while preventing it from bleeding us involves government programs. Every practicing agorist who appears to have no income, who pays little or no taxes, and\or who makes very little traceable income should sign up for every government program possible. If agorists are taking more money away from the state then they are putting back into the state we are effectively depriving the parasite of its life blood: our stolen labor. Like a tape worm which sits in your intestine and consumes a significant portion of the nutrients your body processes the government consumes a significant amount of the product of the labor of the productive class. If agorists can begin to feed off of the state then we can begin to weaken this parasite so that, hopefully, the next generation will not have to deal with it.

Many may look at this as funding agorism through theft. I can sympathize with this sentiment, but being a small movement we don't have the numbers to simply starve the state through deprivation of our tax dollars. We would be no more than a paper cut. Now, if we latched on to that paper cut in an effort to drain the blood away we'd have much better results. These funds could be used for many reasons; for instance, food stamps could be used to purchase food and resell at $.50 on the dollar, the food could be donated to a charity that can't receive government funds, the food could be donated to needy families in the movement who fall upon hard times, a group of agorists could use the food gathered through state theft and start a soup kitchen, or you could keep the food and free up more liquid capital for other things such as: purchasing silver, purchasing ammo, starting a garden, purchasing solar panels, learning self defense tactics, etc... Products received from WIC could be sold or donated to needy mothers who can't afford to pay full price for formula. We need to think of ways to use up this money before it is used against us.

I am in no way advocating dependency. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm advocating independence. Taking this stolen money and returning it to those who need it. One person can only get so much aid, but if 2 or 3 people can supplement that aid then we can negate some of the effects of government, within the community, by redistributing some of the stolen funds to those who feel the loss the most. I don't like the idea of businesses and charities, within the agorists community, taking money from the state because we want these entities to grow outside of state involvement so that when the state dies they're ready to jump in. With that said, I don't mind agorists who decide to take state funds starting up a charity that will redistribute the funds to the needy, preferably those within the movement. I can see some inconsistency as far as this goes. Why wouldn't we want to drain more from the state by having charities take money from the state? Well, for one, we want our charities and businesses to be independent of the state. We want them to grow without the state, yet within the state's decaying shell. If they take money they'll just be another entity which needs to follow certain rules in order to receive the funds and that's not what we want. As individuals the rules are a bit more lax. We can apply and receive the funds without being monitored for the most part. Plus, agorist charities shouldn't be registering with the state. They need to ignore the state, fight the state, and avoid any attempt to acquiesce to the State.

We must bleed the state because, God knows, they're bleeding us.


  1. I agree that it's acceptable to do so, but balk at "should" or "ought to". Often, signing up for government programs brings one into closer contact and exposes one to greater scrutiny than otherwise. If it suits your subjective preferences and risk evaluations -- fine. I don't see a positive obligation to do so, though.

  2. I had actually considered this idea in the past, but personally rejected it. Partly for the reasons Brad mentioned, and partially because it may serve as a corrupting influence. I agree with Thoreau, "It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil."

    Now, my concerns of corruption and fostered dependency were based solely on the idea of using these State funds personally. However, I suppose that might be negated to some extent by your charities idea. If we were to play Robin Hood of a sort (the REAL Robin Hood, who stole from the Prince to return tax monies to the people), then maybe it would be morally justifiable. Maybe. But even if stealing from the thieves is not a violation of the NAP, we have to consider the unintended consequences. (For example, how will the State respond to a surge in demand of their "services"? Increased taxes? Might we only encourage further theft on their part?) I'll have to think about this some more.

    Very good article, though!

    P.S. I will admit, ever since reading Atlas Shrugged 10 years ago, I've had fantasies of becoming a Ragnar Danneskjöld -type pirate ;)

  3. @Brad I didn't mean to imply a duty or obligation. I guess I'm over compensating due to growing up with a stigma against accepting government aid.


  4. @Robbie I'm not too worried about a corrupting influence. If they are libertarian and principled they won't be corrupted. The government doesn't give that much money.

    As for the charities, I think it's the only way really. I mean if you need to use it for yourself then by all means do so, but the main point is to take it back from the state and give it to those who need it.

    I don't view it as theft from the state. You can't steal from the state because it owns nothing. It's simply recovering what was taken from us.

    As for the consequences, isn't that the point, though? Sure they'll raise taxes. It will force more people into the black market because they'll have less $ to spend and be less likely to pay "voluntary" taxes such as sales taxes. (I say voluntary because in some instances it's possible to avoid them not to imply a voluntary nature of them) They will crack down before they die no matter how it is accomplished. They won't relinquish power without a fight. Hence all the domestic police training the military is getting, the crack downs on anti-war protesters, the general lock down of our liberties, etc... It's already happening.